Embracing heritage for personal gain or distancing oneself from heritage for personal gain. It is personal choice.
That is irrelevant to the point being made. Ludmya Bordeau Love is under no requirement to use her husband's name, or shorten Ludmya and discard Bordeau. Those were personal decisions which had the effect of distancing her from her ethnic heritage. However, they don't call her integrity into question anymore than Warren identifying with NA ancestry because of family lore. Do you not get this yet? Is this too tedious for you? I can give you books on this issue.
Embracing heritage for personal gain or distancing oneself from heritage for personal gain. It is personal choice.
No woman is under a legal requirement to take her husband's name. Most of us do it.
Yes, and in Ludmya Bordeau Love's case, it had the effect of further distancing her from her ethnic origins. Again, it does not call into question her integrity. It is a personal decision which is outside of politics. Just like Elizabeth Warren believing she was NA and identifying herself as such because of family lore. I'm thinking you're not too good at this understanding concepts thing.
Mia Love had no choice on her husband's last name.
Many people are under the assumption that a woman must legally change her last name to her husband's last name. This is not the case. She is free to keep her own name, hyphenate her name with her husband's name, take her husband's name, or come up with a completely different name. If the couple agrees, they can even adopt the woman's last name. As long as the name change is not done criminally or fraudulently, any of these options would constitute a legal name change. Before considering changing your name after marriage, be sure you are happy with whatever name you choose. - See more at: Changing Your Name after Marriage - FindLaw
Absolutely. So do you think Warren used her heritage for personal gain? That's what a lot of people seem to think happen. I haven't seen any evidence of her personally gaining from her claim of NA ancestry. Apparently the only one who gained from it was Harvard, unless there's something that hasn't been reported.
I think she embraced what she believed to be her heritage and checked a box.
I think she is an intelligent talented woman (whether you believe in her politics or not) and she would not need such a crutch to get a job.
Ummm of course she did. There is no legal requirement to take a husband's name. However, whether she had a choice or not would still irrelevant. It is part of her distancing herself from her ethnic origins. However these are decisions based on a person's understanding of their racial identity. Likewise, Elizabeth Warren's decision to believe her family's claims on ethnic ancestry does not challenge her integrity either. That you continue to ignore this point is your problem. Not mine.
I said she had no choice on her husband's last name.
I think she embraced what she believed to be her heritage and checked a box.
I think she is an intelligent talented woman (whether you believe in her politics or not) and she would not need such a crutch to get a job.
Of course she did as she was under no requirement to take it. What most women do is irrelevant. :shrug: What part of this do you not get yet? That it's the effect of those decisions that matter and whatever way you slice it, they do not question that person's integrity? Are you looking for things to argue about?
You're absolutely right. Until you, I've never met or heard of anyone in my life questioning a woman's integrity for taking her husband's last name when she got married.
I have heard of and seen people questioning lies on job applications before. That's a common occurrence. Of course there is no evidence that Warren intentionally lied or didn't believe she was not NA, just as there is no evidence that she benefitted from the notion of her being part NA. People question what they perceive to be intentional lies for personal gain all the time. That of course is why the example of Mia Love taking her husband's name when she married him is not relevant to the discussion of Elizabeth Warren and this situation.
If she's proven part Native American and wants to incorporate that into her ethnic heritage/identity then that's not my business to say she can't. It could be purely for political reasons but if she's part Native American she can identify how she pleases.
Your strawman arguments are see through. I've never once questioned anybody's integrity for decisions concerning ethnic heritage. As a matter of fact, I've stated that those decisions have no relation to a person's integrity over and over again. Nice try?
Still nonsensical. Warren identified herself as a NA because of her family lore. Her decisions were made because of her views on ethnic heritage. In the same way, Ludmya Bordeau Love's decisions were based on her views of ethnic heritage. Do you realize why they both fall within the context of decisions made due to personal views on ethnicity yet? Or not? If you don't, admit you don't and move on. :shrug:
Agreed, with exception to the "if she's proven..." bit. If I were her, I would take a DNA test, but for purely personal reasons and not in some misguided attempt to politically appease my detractors who'll hate me regardless of any decision I make (because it's fairly obvious from this thread that her detractors don't really give a crap about whether or not she's Native American). It is one thing to believe what my grandparents tell me, but if pushed to provide documentation and am unable to do so, I would out of personal curiosity want to find out the truth behind my lineage. However, my opinion should in no way be mistaken with any demand to satisfy anybody else's curiosity as it's none of their business.
I'd also take the DNA test but only out of curiosity.
I did in fact take a DNA test, and found out all the "lore" was true. Not that it was particularly extraordinary (no surprise Polynesian or Mongolian was uncovered or anything, and no, I'm not a descendent of Napolean), but it was true just the same.
If she's proven part Native American and wants to incorporate that into her ethnic heritage/identity then that's not my business to say she can't. It could be purely for political reasons but if she's part Native American she can identify how she pleases.
Mia Love's husband's name is Jason Love. That's why she "discarded her clearly French last name. I discarded my clearly German last name when I married my Irish/Swedish husband. That's what most women do when they marry..
No, no. Her legal name is Ludmya Bordeau Love. She goes by Mia Love. Again, a decision which no matter the circumstances distance her from her ethnic heritage. However, it doesn't call into question her integrity either. Do you get this yet? How a person decides to address their ethnic heritage does not call into question their integrity. It is a personal decision which has nothing to do with their actual politics
That is irrelevant to the point being made. Ludmya Bordeau Love is under no requirement to use her husband's name, or shorten Ludmya and discard Bordeau. Those were personal decisions which had the effect of distancing her from her ethnic heritage.
Most women, in our culture, on getting married, have their names legally changed so that they first name is that of their husband. It's not mandatory, of course, but it is the most accepted convention, and most conform to it. Are you claiming that Mrs. Love did not do so?
No, Mia Love changed her name because she fell in love and got married, not because of he views on her ethnicity.